On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 21:37 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:50:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 19:35 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > > > when they do not pass
On Mon, 2018-09-10 at 21:37 +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:50:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 19:35 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > > > when they do not pass
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:50:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 19:35 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl?
>
> checkpatch ignores c99 headers since 2016.
For
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:50:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 19:35 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl?
>
> checkpatch ignores c99 headers since 2016.
For
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:35:46PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> > There is another open. If I grep through the kernel tree I see SPDX
> > headers that are decorated both with C99- and C89-style comments. I
> > guess I
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 07:35:46PM +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> > There is another open. If I grep through the kernel tree I see SPDX
> > headers that are decorated both with C99- and C89-style comments. I
> > guess I
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:50:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 19:35 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl?
>
> checkpatch ignores c99 headers since 2016.
Jarkko was
On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 05:50:01PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 19:35 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl?
>
> checkpatch ignores c99 headers since 2016.
Jarkko was
On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 19:35 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl?
checkpatch ignores c99 headers since 2016.
$ git log --stat -p -1 dadf680de3c2eb4cba9840619991eda0cfe98778
commit
On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 19:35 +0200, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > Which one is right and why the kernel tree is polluted with C99-headers
> > when they do not pass checkpatch.pl?
checkpatch ignores c99 headers since 2016.
$ git log --stat -p -1 dadf680de3c2eb4cba9840619991eda0cfe98778
commit
Hi Jarkko,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
> There is another open. If I grep through the kernel tree I see SPDX
> headers that are decorated both with C99- and C89-style comments. I
> guess I ended up using C99-style because when I was instructed to add
> SPDX headers in
Hi Jarkko,
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:21 AM, Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
> There is another open. If I grep through the kernel tree I see SPDX
> headers that are decorated both with C99- and C89-style comments. I
> guess I ended up using C99-style because when I was instructed to add
> SPDX headers in
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:36:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:34 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:59:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > wrote:
>
> > Thanks, very detailed! Does
On Wed, Sep 05, 2018 at 08:36:54PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:34 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:59:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > > wrote:
>
> > Thanks, very detailed! Does
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:34 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:59:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > wrote:
> Thanks, very detailed! Does not make sense to ack these separately so I
> just say that I try to fix them all
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:34 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:59:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> > wrote:
> Thanks, very detailed! Does not make sense to ack these separately so I
> just say that I try to fix them all
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:59:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> >
> > Intel Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) is a set of CPU instructions that
> > can be used by applications to set aside private regions of code and
> > data. The code
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 08:59:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
> wrote:
> >
> > Intel Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) is a set of CPU instructions that
> > can be used by applications to set aside private regions of code and
> > data. The code
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
>
> Intel Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) is a set of CPU instructions that
> can be used by applications to set aside private regions of code and
> data. The code outside the enclave is disallowed to access the memory
> inside the enclave by
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 9:58 PM Jarkko Sakkinen
wrote:
>
> Intel Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) is a set of CPU instructions that
> can be used by applications to set aside private regions of code and
> data. The code outside the enclave is disallowed to access the memory
> inside the enclave by
Intel Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) is a set of CPU instructions that
can be used by applications to set aside private regions of code and
data. The code outside the enclave is disallowed to access the memory
inside the enclave by the CPU access control.
SGX driver provides a ioctl API for
Intel Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) is a set of CPU instructions that
can be used by applications to set aside private regions of code and
data. The code outside the enclave is disallowed to access the memory
inside the enclave by the CPU access control.
SGX driver provides a ioctl API for
22 matches
Mail list logo
